Over many long years, whenever a modest and not quite disinterested emissary of a member Association of the International Council of Philosophy and the Humanistic Studies came to visit Jean d'Ormesson at his headquarters in the rue Miollis, patiently clearing his path through mountains of dossiers and brochures, he did not, unlike the title of this paper, associate Jean d'Ormesson with the CIPSH - he simply identified the man before him with the CIPSH itself. An equation born of an admiration barely suppressed under a veneer of polite restraint, an identification perhaps suggested to them by the president or secretary of their home association. Nevertheless a quite unfair one for anyone able to perceive with a greater deal of clarity (the office was very dark in overcast weather) what the ‘Secretary-General’ was, as well and much more, outside of the rue Miollis: the writer, the chronicler of his time, soon to become the assiduously active Academician, or even, dare I suggest, the blue-eyed charmer who graced debates on television. But this summary judgement could readily be forgiven, for the host of the premises had the good taste, when welcoming one to CIPSH, to assume only his mantle as Secretary-General. Besides, for the delegates of member Associations - and it was in this capacity that I first met Jean d'Ormesson before becoming his collaborator on the executive Bureau of CIPSH, and then briefly his successor - he appeared as the effective intermediary with that far-off but richly resourced galaxy called UNESCO. He was the man of warmth and charm who could be relied on to safeguard the subsidies that helped support our conferences and fund our voluminous compilations, which were vital tools for our research.

Prehistory, with the assistance of physical anthropology, palaeogenetics and environmental sciences, aims to explain the processes through which continents were peopled.

Over the coming decades, the so-called telematic technologies are destined to grow more and more encompassing in scale and the repercussions they will have on our professional and personal lives will become ever more accentuated. The transformations resulting from the digitization of data have already profoundly modified a great many of the activities of human life and exercise significant influence on the way we design, draw up, store and send documents, as well as on the means used for locating information in libraries, databases and on the net. These changes are transforming the nature of international communication and are modifying the way in which we carry out research, engage in study, keep our accounts, plan our travel, do our shopping, look after our health, organize our leisure time, undertake wars and so on. The time is not far off when miniaturized digital systems will be installed everywhere - in our homes and offices, in the car, in our pockets or even embedded within the bodies of each one of us. They will help us to keep control over every aspect of our lives and will efficiently and effectively carry out multiple tasks which today we have to devote precious time to. As a consequence, our ways of acting and thinking will be transformed. These new winds of change, which are blowing strongly, are giving birth to a new culture to which the name ‘digital culture’ has been given. It is timely that a study should be made of the different aspects and consequences of this culture, but that this study should not be just undertaken from the point of view of the simple user who quickly embraces the latest successful innovation, in reaction essentially to market forces. The major challenge for this culture resides not so much in the development of even more tiny microchips, faster processors or more refined software, but in the honing of conceptual instruments which will give us the ability to analyse and evaluate the radical changes that this revolution is bringing about and which it will continue to provoke in all of our lives.

Recent years have seen a tremendous growth in international scholarly communication, especially perhaps in Europe. On the one hand, the technical means of communication have undergone a major revolution. Scholars and scientists can communicate almost instantly via phone, fax and especially by e-mail, and post their results on their websites instead of having to wait for months and sometimes years to have them published. On the other hand, various institutional frameworks have been created for the purpose of fostering international scientific communication and cooperation. These institutional arrangements have typically been supported by responsible governments. One unspoken or spoken motive (among others) in encouraging international exchanges - especially in the humanities and social sciences - is the expectation that the new technical and institutional improvements in communication not only facilitate research and scholarship but directly or indirectly contribute to the discussion of important cultural, educational and social issues in the different participating countries, and perhaps even help people and peoples to cope with them.

In keeping with the general theme of the General Assembly of CIPSH in Beijing, 2004, in this article I emphasize the potential of the internet to impact the use of works of art in public and private museums for study and research, and for the publication of research. The possibility exists nowadays of creating a hyper-real ‘musée imaginaire’ or ‘museum without walls’ to use André Malraux's phrase of more than fifty years ago. It is hard to see how it could be anything but a benefit to human knowledge to have images of all works in the public domain (that is, for which the creator's copyright has expired) available on the world wide web. Under US law this year (2006) that would mean all works created before 1911. There are encouraging developments in that direction, but there is also constant legal wrangling. And I have to admit there are sometimes two sides to the question, even if I think one argument is far stronger than the other.

A twofold threat hangs over freedom of communication. In rich countries globalization is leading to standardization of thought via national and international bodies. In the cultural as well as the scientific field, especially the human sciences, diversity is needed for reasons of both survival and democracy. Efficiency and productivity imperatives are sacrificing human diversity for economically cost-effective goals. For instance, in the communication field the merging of publishing functions in all media is an obstacle to the free circulation of ideas because it is channelled into the marketing and sales area. In the countries of the southern hemisphere the absence of media makes communication inaccessible for the majority of citizens. So the lack of ideas comes on top of other shortages of basic needs, health care, food, housing … The globalization of trade increases the illusion of a communication which is now accessible to all. But exclusion is increasing because people cannot access knowledge and culture. In fact, in the North as well as the South, the opportunity for everyone to communicate their thinking - their research, their cultural or artistic creations, to communicate a personal experience - is dwindling at the same time as technical progress appears in fact to offer us all the means to express ourselves and have a chance of being heard. The corollary of the creeping globalization of exchanges is that a growing proportion of our contemporaries are put in the position of silent receivers. Indeed the more powerful the media employed, the more those they address become voiceless and passive. Paradoxically, the explosion in communication technology is creating a greater gulf between the well-off and the underprivileged, confining the first in ‘single line of thought’ and excluding the second from any participation in the dialogue. There is no freedom of thought in a world where only one channel exists, even though it communicates that thought in infinitely varied ways. The consumerist consensus never expresses democratic aspirations, but the self-satisfied stupidity of their apathy.

Emergent scholarship on the most radical technological invention of our time confirms what most of us know from first-hand experience - that the internet has fundamentally altered our perceptions and our knowledge, as well as our sense of subjectivity, community and agency (see for example Vries, 2002: 19). The American scholar of religion and communications, Stephen O'Leary, one of the first scholars to analyze the role of the new media for religious communities, claims that the advent of the internet has been as revolutionary for religious growth and dissemination as was the invention of the printing press (O'Leary, 1996).

If all language is, in essence and in practice, the systematic repository of the collective awareness of the society that uses it, how can the ethnographer use his own language to write about a collective awareness that is not his own? How can he write so that he may properly represent this foreign collective awareness (which he can only partially share with the society that possesses it) without it sounding like a lot of gibberish? One way or another, through the use of native terms, some degree of progress is made, and the moment finally arrives when the book or article about a particular aspect of the society being studied leaves the ethnographer's hands, though he is certainly aware that what he has said is, inevitably, only an approximation that will require a considerable amount of correcting and polishing. As an ethnographer, in the end, you grow accustomed to this feeling of being overwhelmed by a social reality that is foreign to your own. It is actually far more difficult to regain fluidity in your own language - after days and days of forcing it and stretching it to its absolute limits in the attempt to wrap it around foreign physics and metaphysics, one's own language often feels as though it has lost its own elasticity, as if it has been stretched so very far that it can no longer return to its normal state of use.

A practice, a technique, an expertise cannot be left unexplored by an account that can explain their basis and organization as well as their objectives. Whether the internet is understood as a practice, or seen as a journey through a space that knows no borders, or cursed as humanity overreaching itself yet again (hybris), nevertheless its reality raises questions about our experience of the world (experimentum mundi) and explores its nature, giving an exact measure, beyond assumptions, of the relationship between humans and machines. With this in mind a multicultural, multidisciplinary study was set up in the USA through the publication of Academy and the Internet, jointly edited by Helen Nissenbaum and Monroe Price (2004). The book sets out to examine the relations between the internet and economic issues, the internet and social problems of equality, politics (the question of public space), the communicative relationship in a virtual world. Interculturally speaking, only the Chinese contribution gives the debate - which is almost tribal since it is American to the core - an off-centre tone. A debate makes statements and analyses, but it also omits and may skate over other perspectives. Africa, which is absent from this debate, almost forces its way in via this paper. What is the position with the relationship between the internet and present-day African experience? Hardly coping as it is with the consequences of the recent introduction of writing, how is Africa experiencing this internet adventure, in which the status of images, words and time seems to be called into question? This brief presentation will look first at the status of technoscience - under which heading the internet is subsumed in Africa - and then at the challenges the internet throws up in the region. Our method will be to examine internet capacities from the viewpoint of oral cultures that are dominated economically.